Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

That is wrong...Plain and simply.
Maybe you need to familiarise yourself with Authur Eddington's 1919 Eclipse data, based on the light from a distant star, which Einstein predicted correctly, would be slightly askew due to curved space caused by the mass of the Sun.......Known gravitational lensing is another...and of course that which was measured to high precision by GP-B.
And a lot more to boot.

Click to expand...

That's still not proof of a curved spacetime. Oh well, the thread is off topic. I posted whilst things were being moved.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Proof is not applicable in science......
What I have mentioned, is overwhelming evidence to support curved space/time.

Maybe you are able to tell me what GP-B was measuring? [forgetting all the other evidence/data supporting curved space/time]

On second thoughts, you need to keep jackass Ideas such as you have posted in pseudoscience.

Click to expand...

He measured the inward movements of points that light moves through. That's all. Points can be any shape without being a curved flat space. You can put points in a 3D model and move them inwards like a sphere made from points, like the Earth made from atoms. Photons move into atoms, photons move into points. You don't need a curved, flat space. Just points. A black hole would be 1 long stretched point, and it would look like a tube, daffodil. Nature's shapes would then use the same system. Nature is 3D not flat. Anyway I'm going to make a computer simulation of it.

He measured the inward movements of points that light moves through. That's all. Points can be any shape without being a curved flat space. You can put points in a 3D model and move them inwards like a sphere made from points, like the Earth made from atoms. Photons move into atoms, photons move into points. You don't need a curved, flat space. Just points. A black hole would be 1 long stretched point, and it would look like a tube, daffodil. Nature's shapes would then use the same system. Nature is 3D not flat. Anyway I'm going to make a computer simulation of it.

Proof is not applicable in science......
What I have mentioned, is overwhelming evidence to support curved space/time.

Maybe you are able to tell me what GP-B was measuring? [forgetting all the other evidence/data supporting curved space/time]

On second thoughts, you need to keep jackass Ideas such as you have posted in pseudoscience.

Click to expand...

If you interpret the GP-B results exclusively within the context of GR and the curved spacetime geometry is uses to describe gravitational dynamics.., you can make the leap of projecting that geometric description on reality and saying that space as well as spacetime is deformed dynamically by the presence of a gravitational mass...

The world and reality are more complex than that. Only as an alternate example and pure specualtion... The results could also be explained as the result of how the presence of mass affects the zero-point field around it... And then how the dynamics of that interaction affects another object within the same ZPF dynamic conditions.

We have reasonably good evidence that matter interacts with the local ZPF. The Casimir effect being but one example. It is not such a great leap to think that the earth's magnetic field, rotating and moving through space interacts dynamically with the associated ZPF... And that other objects within that local dynamics would also be affected. The earth changes the dynamics of a part of the local ZPF which affects all other objects within that part of the field...

Spacetime as a geometric description of gravitation, certainly involves curvature. How that is manefest in reality is not yet certain.

Nice link, discussing the possible quanta nature of space/time.
It's your conclusions that are at odds with observations.

Click to expand...

I'm not at odds with observations, science is. My whole theory is based on observations. I only add the space grain structure as a relationship to the observation of water, and waves which are particle propagated. So that is still an observation. Refraction in water is the bending of light by moving points, so I use that to bend spacetime. It is an observation. The red shift is an observation also, and moving points inwards would create red shift. You have move the distance between objects inwards, and away from each other. And the Plank Telescope even observed the space grain once, but couldn't find it a second time. I use a scalar grain structure so finding it twice is harder, because it changes scale.

I'm not at odds with observations, science is. My whole theory is based on observations. I only add the space grain structure as a relationship to the observation of water, and waves which are particle propagated. So that is still an observation. Refraction in water is the bending of light by moving points, so I use that to bend spacetime. It is an observation. The red shift is an observation also, and moving points inwards would create red shift. You have move the distance between objects inwards, and away from each other.

Click to expand...

Science is at odds with observation, while you see the light...Hmmmmm
I reject that ridiculous claim totally.
Water is far denser then space.
Space/time curves and I have given you evidence supporting that.
You cannot refute any of that evidence.

Science is at odds with observation, while you see the light...Hmmmmm
I reject that ridiculous claim totally.
Water is far denser then space.
Space/time curves and I have given you evidence supporting that.
You cannot refute any of that evidence.

Click to expand...

OK, I shall just ask you the Theory Of Everything then next time. It saves a lot of trouble. And I didn't say that space didn't curve, I just said that it was a 3D curve that anyone can use in a computer by moving points inwards. Not a strange flat spacetime that sits like a rubber sheet. You have also given me no evidence of Spacetime.

You didn't read what I said. I said that photons travel through the points. So how would that show up? They are the points. It's the same as saying scientists couldn't find bees because of all the bees.

You didn't read what I said. I said that photons travel through the points. So how would that show up? They are the points. It's the same as saying scientists couldn't find bees because of all the bees.

Click to expand...

This is off topic.
If you want to rant about your alternative stuff, start a new thread in the appropriate section.